IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i2p335-342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Workers’ Perception of Chemical Risks: A Focus Group Study

Author

Listed:
  • Ramona Hambach
  • Philippe Mairiaux
  • Guido François
  • Lutgart Braeckman
  • Alain Balsat
  • Guido Van Hal
  • Chantal Vandoorne
  • Paul Van Royen
  • Marc van Sprundel

Abstract

Workers’ perceptions with respect to health and safety at work are rarely taken into account when considering the development of prevention programs. The aim of this study was to explore workers’ perceptions of chemical risks at the workplace, in order to investigate the prerequisites for a workplace health program. A qualitative study was conducted involving seven focus groups of 5–10 participants (blue‐collar workers) each. All groups were homogeneous in terms of sex, work status, language, and company membership. Results showed that several factors have an important influence on workers’ perception of chemical risks. Workers assess risks by means of both sensory and empirical diagnosis and are concerned about the long‐term health consequences. They perceive the threat of chemical risks as high. Despite this, they are resigned to accepting the risks. Existing formal sources of information are rarely consulted because they are judged to be difficult to understand and not user friendly. Instead, workers tend to obtain information from informal sources. Communication problems with and lack of trust in prevention advisers and hierarchy are frequently mentioned. Workers feel that their specific knowledge of their working conditions and their proposals for practical, cost‐effective solutions to improve health and safety at the workplace are insufficiently taken into account. The use of focus groups yielded a useful insight into workers’ perceptions of chemical risks. Our findings suggest that training programs for prevention advisers should include topics such as understanding of workers’ perceptions, usefulness of a participatory approach, and communication and education skills.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramona Hambach & Philippe Mairiaux & Guido François & Lutgart Braeckman & Alain Balsat & Guido Van Hal & Chantal Vandoorne & Paul Van Royen & Marc van Sprundel, 2011. "Workers’ Perception of Chemical Risks: A Focus Group Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 335-342, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:335-342
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01489.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01489.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01489.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Patrick Cox & Jörg Niewöhner & Nick Pidgeon & Simon Gerrard & Baruch Fischhoff & Donna Riley, 2003. "The Use of Mental Models in Chemical Risk Protection: Developing a Generic Workplace Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 311-324, April.
    3. Gene Rowe & George Wright, 2001. "Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 341-356, April.
    4. Jörg Niewöhner & Patrick Cox & Simon Gerrard & Nick Pidgeon, 2004. "Evaluating the Efficacy of a Mental Models Approach for Improving Occupational Chemical Risk Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 349-361, April.
    5. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Torbjorn Malmfors, 1999. "“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 649-659, August.
    6. Curtis Breslin, F. & Polzer, Jessica & MacEachen, Ellen & Morrongiello, Barbara & Shannon, Harry, 2007. "Workplace injury or "part of the job"?: Towards a gendered understanding of injuries and complaints among young workers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 782-793, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    2. Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.
    3. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.
    4. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2005. "Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 503-517, June.
    5. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    6. Catherine E. LePrevost & Margaret R. Blanchard & W. Gregory Cope, 2011. "The Pesticide Risk Beliefs Inventory: A Quantitative Instrument for the Assessment of Beliefs about Pesticide Risks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-13, June.
    7. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    8. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    9. Yan Cao & William L. McGill, 2013. "LinkIT: A Ludic Elicitation Game for Eliciting Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1066-1082, June.
    10. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    11. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    12. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    13. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    14. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    15. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    16. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    17. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    18. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    19. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    20. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:335-342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.